On 5 January 2016 at 19:53, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > Yes, I thought it up, hence it's theoretical. If you think that means it > > hasn't happened countless times along those lines, you need to learn how > > to google. > > I hope you realize how weak is an argument along the lines of "I am > right, if you don't see it, learn how to google". > > I'm sorry. I, wrongly, assumed that it was common knowledge by now how toxic the tech environment and culture can be, and how many people have been abused and harassed, both online and offline. > > Is there any particular reason you feel the need for arguing strawmen? > > At which point has *anyone* argued for against due process? If you > > cannot point to any such point, would you mind not assuming them? > > > > > > > > I hope that would be going too far for you? > > > > > > See above. > > As you see, I have assumed exactly the opposite: that you are *not* > against due process. That's what "going too far" means. You are merely > using an argument that proves too much > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much) - following that > argument, we could conclude that due process is bad. Which is an absurd > conclusion - that's how reductio ad absurdum works. > > You argued against a strawman. I pointed that out. One of us was misreading something, and seeing as you put the argument with no due process whatsoever forward, I thought it was you. My mistake. > > Unless you've been through abuse and harassment along the lines > > of > http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/ > > I would suggest you stop assuming what it is like. > > I can not stop it since I never started. But what is like, however bad > it is, is not an argument for what we are discussing, since we do not > argue what happened there is good. We argue whether adopting the RFC is > a good way to prevent something like that from happening or reduce its > incidence. Saying "introducing safe mode is not a good way to improve > security" is not the same as saying "we need no security" :) > > It seems to me you did in fact assume that things could be handled transparently on the mailing list - as that was the proposed solution you put forward. I then pointed to a specific case that I doubt most people would be happy about making public. And yes, we're discussing how to best handle things. My specific point was that requiring people to post to the mailing list if they have any grievances is not a good idea. Doesnt mean that the watchmen shouldn't be watched. -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>
